Is there a such thing as too much light?

[ReefOG311]

13g fluval evo tank. I have stock LED fixture 14k and now added (1) 12k strip, and (2) actinic strips. Is it overkill?

 

[James M]

Yes there is such thing as too much light .
I think your okay for light

 

[ReefOG311]

Thanks

 

[ReefOG311]

Now we'll see how I do with temp, lol

 

[pga7602]

Can someone pull up the old research with porites? I proves it.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Is there a such thing as too much light?

yes, its called photosaturation, & it inhibits photosynthesis

 

[jda]

You would need a quality PAR meter to tell if you have too much light. I would try and keep those LEDs under 400-500 PAR at the corals - others will disagree.

 

[Dana Riddle]

It is quite possible, but I can't speak to your specific situation. As @jda mentioned, you'll need a light-measuring device - preferably a PAR meter.
https://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007/3/aafeature1

 

[Scrubber_steve]

Is there a such thing as too much light?

yes, its called photosaturation, & it inhibits photosynthesis

I believe I used the word "photo-saturation" incorrectly.
Photo-saturation is where the rate of photosynthesis no longer increases with an increase in light intensity. Photo-inhibition is the word I should have used to describe "too much light" - where the rate of photosynthesis decreases due to over intensity.

 

[Dana Riddle]

I believe I used the word "photo-saturation" incorrectly.
Photo-saturation is where the rate of photosynthesis no longer increases with an increase in light intensity. Photo-inhibition is the word I should have used to describe "too much light" - where the rate of photosynthesis decreases due to over intensity.

I think you used the term 'photosaturation' correctly in the respect that it wastes electricity and could be associated with over-heating if you're using halides, and so on.

 

[T-5unsystem]

It's unlikely you'd ever give as much light as some corals receive above water at low tide in the south pacific, but not all corals can survive that!

 

[vetteguy53081]

Yes , to the point you burn and bleach out corals.

 

[JasPR]

Yep, definitely a condition of too much light
Is possible. The high end brands of LEDs should never be run at 100% for more than an hour or two, if at all. Bleaching, algae etc. it is very typical in a male dominated hobby to take a good idea or an isolated true statement and bring it from the sublime to the ridiculous- lighting is just one more example

 

[jda]

Keep in mind that some of the most successful tanks using LED do indeed use them at 100% all of the time - therman, BattleCorals, Dr. Joshi, WWC (I hate using a vendor as an example to a hobbyist, so sorry). There are more. The do raise them up pretty high. Quality and diffusion matters a bunch too. For example, I have about 900 PAR (Apogee 510 for measurement) in the center of my frag tank under 6500k halides and I do not burn, melt or otherwise distress the corals that are put under there - I mostly use this area for T. clams, but I will also use it for frags that I want to get going faster or I want better color out of them. Most of the frags are well above 600 and most are at 700-750 PAR. Half of this amount of PAR under most LED would kill the coral - diffusion or quality is most likely not the same in these cases where there one thrives and the other dies.

I do not get any growth limiting from the high light. The frags under 900 PAR will grow faster than the ones under less - I light everything for between 10-11 hours. The clams grow faster for sure, but nobody (of sufficient competence) has ever suggested that they are limited at all by high light. I do have the full range of spectrum that comes with mercury, so maybe there is something to Emerson effect.

 

[Dana Riddle]

Keep in mind that some of the most successful tanks using LED do indeed use them at 100% all of the time - therman, BattleCorals, Dr. Joshi, WWC (I hate using a vendor as an example to a hobbyist, so sorry). There are more. The do raise them up pretty high. Quality and diffusion matters a bunch too. For example, I have about 900 PAR (Apogee 510 for measurement) in the center of my frag tank under 6500k halides and I do not burn, melt or otherwise distress the corals that are put under there - I mostly use this area for T. clams, but I will also use it for frags that I want to get going faster or I want better color out of them. Most of the frags are well above 600 and most are at 700-750 PAR. Half of this amount of PAR under most LED would kill the coral - diffusion or quality is most likely not the same in these cases where there one thrives and the other dies.

I do not get any growth limiting from the high light. The frags under 900 PAR will grow faster than the ones under less - I light everything for between 10-11 hours. The clams grow faster for sure, but nobody (of sufficient competence) has ever suggested that they are limited at all by high light. I do have the full range of spectrum that comes with mercury, so maybe there is something to Emerson effect.

Since you mentioned the Emerson Enhancement Effect (where far-red light stimulates photosynthesis in Photosystem I thus relieving photosynthetic pressure on Photosystem II), the question has to be asked - what if there is no red light? Are all zooxanthella clades capable of 'spill-over' (where energy collected by Photosystem II is shared with Photosystem I)? My experiences at Aquatic Wildlife back in the 90's differs a bit from yours. We found corals under 800 - 900 PAR (Iwasaki 6500K DL metal halides, shielded for UV) expressed coloration on 100% of their surface area, but also grew the slowest (probably due to photoinhibition - I did not have a PAM meter at the time to check it.) Slow growth could be due to the photoadaptive capabilities of the zoox species or clade.

 

[jda]

I have seen you post this before. I wonder if you hurt the corals in some fashion by blocking the UV? I just let mine go with nothing but the glass shield on the bulb for SE, and I use the glass for all DE bulbs... there is output down to about 350, if you can believe the instruments that measure them. With UV having the most energy, it makes a bit of sense that corals could grow faster with more energy, but this is probably a stretch.

When we were in the coral sea, the collectors there said that the corals at the surface, or out of the water, at low tide grew faster than the ones deeper. At 2200, or so, PAR, they did not seem to suffer from photo inhibition. I wonder if quality or something lacking in man-made lights inhibits them since the sun does not seem to.

While I think that light is by-far the most important factor, do you remember your building block parameters and even flow rates? I have a semi-friend who switched to 10k mh bulbs because he was not getting much growth, but when we got his nitrate below 40 and the phosphates under 1.0, these stuff started to grow at a more rapid pace instead of just staying stagnant, surviving and looking fine (not great, but fine).

Remember that I offered to ship you acropora frags if you ever want to test again so that you do not have to use Porites. This offer is still good.

 

[Dana Riddle]

I have seen you post this before. I wonder if you hurt the corals in some fashion by blocking the UV? I just let mine go with nothing but the glass shield on the bulb for SE, and I use the glass for all DE bulbs... there is output down to about 350, if you can believe the instruments that measure them. With UV having the most energy, it makes a bit of sense that corals could grow faster with more energy, but this is probably a stretch.

When we were in the coral sea, the collectors there said that the corals at the surface, or out of the water, at low tide grew faster than the ones deeper. At 2200, or so, PAR, they did not seem to suffer from photo inhibition. I wonder if quality or something lacking in man-made lights inhibits them since the sun does not seem to.

While I think that light is by-far the most important factor, do you remember your building block parameters and even flow rates? I have a semi-friend who switched to 10k mh bulbs because he was not getting much growth, but when we got his nitrate below 40 and the phosphates under 1.0, these stuff started to grow at a more rapid pace instead of just staying stagnant, surviving and looking fine (not great, but fine).

Remember that I offered to ship you acropora frags if you ever want to test again so that you do not have to use Porites. This offer is still good.

All good questions. I don't have the data logs from the coral farm, but since we used algal scrubbers we were more concerned with micro-nutrient starvation, particularly iron. As for lighting, there are so many unanswered questions. I had forgotten your coral offer - the tank needs some help since I've been traveling so much - I need to do a water change and do a general tune-up. I'll definitely write myself a note to contact you when things are squared away.

 

[T-5unsystem]

Yes , to the point you burn and bleach out corals.

IMO this is certainly not from excessive light. This appears to be an alk problem or something stinging it. Too much light typically leads to bleaching and pale colors, not RTN.

 

[vetteguy53081]

IMO this is certainly not from excessive light. This appears to be an alk problem or something stinging it. Too much light typically leads to bleaching and pale colors, not RTN.

This was a pic attached to give this person an idea of burn. This was from a club member locally who actually installed two new Reefbrite whites and actually burned up 4 corals in 24 hrs. He added blue and never had issue since.